NSLE desysopped

Administrator desysopped after sockpuppeting incident

NSLE had his administrative powers revoked on Saturday, after the Arbitration Committee determined he had abused his powers by unprotecting an article, then editing it with a sockpuppet account.

Arbitrator Kat Walsh (Mindspillage) stated in a posting on the administrators' noticeboard, which was also attested to by five other arbitrators:

The Arbitration Committee has been made aware of very strong (but necessarily privileged) evidence that NSLE abused his sysop privileges in unprotecting an article which he then used a sockpuppet to edit, and we believe that these actions were done under the direction of a permanently-banned user. Despite repeated pleas over many weeks from the Committee for some benign reasoning of the evidence, no such satisfactory explanation was forthcoming.

As a result, NSLE was desysopped, and is not permitted to seek administrative powers again without the permission of the Committee.

No other information was given in the case, with arbitrators and other users involved in the case stressing that the evidence, while damning, was kept private for reasons of deterrence, and per NSLE's request.

NSLE noted that his stand was always that of innocence, though he understood the Arbitration Committee's decision. [1] NSLE also posted in the discussion:

Thanks for your support, everyone, I've previously discussed this extensively with Jimbo and understand the actions of the ArbCom. I'll continue to be in discussion over this with Jimbo, but for the meantime please just treat this as a blip in the road, and please, for my sake, drop the matter.

In its initial post, the Committee thanked Greg Maxwell and Kelly Martin for their involvement in dealing with the situation. Neither user made any public comment on the issue. As a result of the decision, NSLE becomes the tenth user to lose his adminship involuntarily, and the seventh such user since November 2005.

NSLE later left a note on his talk page, noting that he was on "extended wikibreak," staying only to make minor edits to his favorite articles.

+ Add a comment

Discuss this story

Hey Ral, while I undersand the need for this article, my stand was always innocence, even though I understand why the ArbCom had to make the decision. "Very strong evidence" is never 100% conclusive, and if it is possible, I'd like to request that the article not be written in such a biased manner. Of course, I also understand if this isn't possible, trying to put this in the nicest way, the ArbCom would prefer themselves never to be put in a bad light - they are the third-highest power after the Board and Jimbo, after all. Also, please note I've changed the note on my usertalk to "extended wikibreak". Cheers, and good luck in the future, NSLE 11:14, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The Signpost · written by many · served by Sinepost V0.9 · 🄯 CC-BY-SA 4.0